YoY rise for Edinburgh & Aberdeen prices

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

Annnnnnnnnd Hamish has left the building.
Honestly. Who could have seen that coming.

I know it's so rude. You'd think he'd wait until your lunch break was over before disappearing.

You're managing to cram a lot in today though.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

because the economic context suggests that that is more realistic.
oh, and BECAUSE THE PRODUCERS OF THE STATISTICS KEEP TELLING US THAT THE PEAKS ARE DUE TO SKEW :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

So you need them to tell you that there are low transactions at the troughs as well which can skew the results.
Pretty sure they do but I'll take a note to point it out to you next time

geneer wrote: »

But we also know that the original peak co-incides with peak prices proper. So we can compare that to the latest trough.

So you believe you can compare an "original" peak where transactions were higher v's a trough where there a low transactions, non mix adjusted or repeat regression sales mixed and everyone accepts that the data can be skewed because of the low volumes.

I think any analytical person can see a flaw in that theory.

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:I wondered how long it would take for you to go "up my street". Funny how you bulls always have the...erm....stats to support the fact that your personal position is in no way influenced by events in the real world.

Ok, it's an anecdotal response to an area you claim to be crashing which in reality is not.

Even the OP link shows there have been rises in the last year (or do you dismiss that data)

I believe there have been posts you have dismissed before that shows repeat sales of the same properties increasing.

Quite simply, any data provided which cinflicts with what you want to see is dismissed.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So you need them to tell you that there are low transactions at the troughs as well which can skew the results.

The fact that they don't keep telling us that this is the case suggests not.

As well as everything else thats happening in the economy.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

So you believe you can compare an "original" peak where transactions were higher v's a trough where there a low transactions, non mix adjusted or repeat regression sales mixed and everyone accepts that the data can be skewed because of the low volumes.

I believe the peak is peak, coming as it did, oh, around about peak.

I believe the subsequent peaks are due to statistical skew, given the fact that 1) they dropped out at an alarming rate and 2) the VIs kept telling us it was statistical skew.
Which means I have a bit more faith in the troughs.

So yes indeed, I think we can compare peak to trough.


But I see where you are going with this light.
We cannot accept any data at face value and must stop discussing the statistics forthwith.

Unless of course they are statistics that support your "not a bull" assertions that prices have risen in a economic meltdown.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, it's an anecdotal response to an area you claim to be crashing which in reality is not.

Even the OP link shows there have been rises in the last year (or do you dismiss that data)

I believe there have been posts you have dismissed before that shows repeat sales of the same properties increasing.

Quite simply, any data provided which cinflicts with what you want to see is dismissed.

All I'm saying is that I'm shocked by how your particular annecdotal demonstrates that your "personal" crash is going much better than everywhere else. That hardly ever happens with the property bulls.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

The fact that they don't keep telling us that this is the case suggests not.

I'll make sure this is pointed out to you in future.

geneer wrote: »

But I see where you are going with this light.

Despite hearing it time and again, I still find it funny you think that the peaks are statistical skews yet the troughs (based on the same set of criteria) is not troughs.

I also find it funny, that despite a long trend of the prices fluctuating around an effective stagnant point that you believe there is a crash.

geneer wrote: »

All I'm saying is that I'm shocked by how your particular annecdotal demonstrates that your "personal" crash is going much better than everywhere else. That hardly ever happens with the property bulls.

Again, your comedy is cracking me up.
How have I witnessed a "personal" crash when the survayors have valued the property higher and the lenders give me a good rate because the LTV is lowering?

P.S. I've stated time and again about regional variations. Because the UK (or E&W if using LR) is showing a drop, that does not mean that each area is affected the same.
Some will be better, some will fare worse.

I thought you didn't believe in meaningless averages

doire_2

ISTL ....I remember reading your conversation yesterday with Graham Devon when he said you were a bull.

You do tend to 'argue' a lot with bears on here but dont seem to have the same attitude towards the bulls.

Im not having a go! Just an observation

IveSeenTheLight

doire wrote: »

ISTL ....I remember reading your conversation yesterday with Graham Devon when he said you were a bull.

You do tend to 'argue' a lot with bears on here but dont seem to have the same attitude towards the bulls.

Im not having a go! Just an observation

Debate is the word

I have from time to time corrected so called "bulls"

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=17126561&postcount=37

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47200597&postcount=39

There are more but not wasting further time.

If people made good points, backed up with facts then it would lend to good discussions.

Unfortunately there are to many ifs, buts and straws and much less facts.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'll make sure this is pointed out to you in future.

Point what out?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Despite hearing it time and again, I still find it funny you think that the peaks are statistical skews yet the troughs (based on the same set of criteria) is not troughs.

I find it funny that you keep ignoring the fact that the VIs kept stating that the peaks were due to statistical skew. Not the troughs.

I also find it funny that you're wavering between only accepting the counter-intuitive interpretation, and a scorched earth policy of ignoring all the figures. :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I also find it funny, that despite a long trend of the prices fluctuating around an effective stagnant point that you believe there is a crash.

Sorry what?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Again, your comedy is cracking me up.

I do get the impression that your on the verge of cracking up.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How have I witnessed a "personal" crash when the survayors have valued the property higher and the lenders give me a good rate because the LTV is lowering?

So you claim.


In any event, I wasn't saying you have or haven't. I was just taking the proverbial.
The bullish "personal crash" "personal inflation" "personal recession" meme has been doing the rounds lately.
So lets reign in the entierly predictable pedantry light, theres a good chap.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

P.S. I've stated time and again about regional variations. Because the UK (or E&W if using LR) is showing a drop, that does not mean that each area is affected the same.
Some will be better, some will fare worse.

I thought you didn't believe in meaningless averages

:rotfl:I seem to recall pointing out the same issues myself light.
Though of course you're much less happier to look at the breakdown of local averages, as our recent discussions have demonstrated.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Point what out?


....[gneer guff]......

Don't worry.
If you can't follow a simple post with direct responses then it's best to show you the next actual example.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Don't worry.
If you can't follow a simple post with direct responses then it's best to show you the next actual example.

:rotfl:For once we agree. I do find your posts quite...simple.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

:rotfl:For once we agree. I do find your posts quite...simple.

Yet not quite simple enough for you ay geneer